Quadcopters, Cameras, and the Law

Quadcopters, multicopters and other remotely controlled model aircraft aircraft have long been enjoyed by videographers who envision capturing stunning aerial video. Since the military has devised the highly effective drones for use in the war, these more innocent hobbyists aircraft have attracted new attention.

Let’s start by defining some terms. The term drone is most properly applied to a military weapon. But the word has been erroneously applied to radio controlled model aircraft flown by hobbyists. Drones are for the military; RC aircraft are for hobbyists. OK?

First Person Video (FPV) is captured by a camera that is mounted on the aircraft. This video makes it appear that the pilot is in the aircraft, but the pilot is remotely controlling the plane.

Visual Line of Sight (VSOL) refers to the practice of keeping the aircraft within sight at all times. Should the aircraft fly beyond the pilot’s sight, people and property may be endangered.

Aerial Filming and Privacy

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. Many states have laws or legal precedents which grant a right to privacy. Rights to privacy may apply where a person, their home or property is being filmed. So the same releases we use for ground-based video should be used. These releases grant permission to the videographer or filmmaker to legally use that footage. An aircraft can see a lot more of the earth and people so numerous persons or property owners may be affected.

The AMA is the largest model aviation association, representing more than 150,000 members who enjoy the hobby of flying model aircraft. The group provides liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration. It is the F.A.A. which has authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation including radio-controlled model aircraft. The most current FAA Advisory Circular is important reading for everyone who flies model aircraft.

A very annoying turn of events. The State can do it but you cannot. Well, there are so many problems with these first issue laws that they will be debated a long time or thrown out. Pressure them. Or ignore it. There is safety in putting a camera on a model aircraft, if you can afford it. Then there is recording the video onboard the aircraft for later retrieval vs. transmitting it to the ground in real time, something hard to do for actual use in a film. Even big government drones transmit crummy video but it is good enough for their purpose most of the time but probably not for our uses. Your tax department videos and photographs your home and land annually to look for changes and improvements so they can tax you. That is done in Texas all the time. By pilots, yes, but by remote control will probably come into use if it gets good enough and is cheaper. Pilots loose work; I would have this thrown out on the basis of shooting anything in public as we already do, with homes, people in the shots. As long as you can’t recognize a face it just does not matter. And even if so, it is a civil matter, not a criminal one. It is expensive to sue someone and you may loose anyway. A very basic legal contest of these overarching bills will get most of it thrown out since decades of legal, practical precedence has been set by the film and still photography industry. Smart politicians will quickly figure out that they can sell licenses and collect fees and levy fines for the use of arial video platforms. Just watch.

You’re right. I misspoke. Considering the potential dangers, I think the F.A.A. needs to come up with well-thought-out rules. This may mean limiting the size and capabilities of model aircraft. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

I think it’s pretty laughable how you link to the “latest” document from the FAA and its from 1981!

What I want to know is how folks are getting by the commercial restriction. People use quadcopters for movies and other commercial endeavors, and they are not giving it away for free. So how do they do this?

I had one hovering over my backyard this morning for about 20 seconds. It left when I went to get my shotgun. It then went down the neighborhood backyards before heading across a field. An unwarranted invasion of privacy! If someone can’t step on my property to film my family without my permission, why should it be done via the air?

I believe that Drones or UAV’s are simply a tool just like the camera on a cell phone. If I climb up on a high ladder, or a tree or on top of a building to film a neighbor its basically Aerial footage too. I gues the entire planet would need to have a mass recall on each and every tablet, cell phone, laptop, or device which has a camera. I think that whats going on here goes alot further. UAV’s give civilians power. It gives us a tool to defend ourselves which goes against what the Gov’t wants that it to leave us vulnerable without right to bear arms and without an edge. Drones are a usefull tool which we can utilize to point out police abuse, to point out Gov’t abuse. Thats the real reason why they want to make it impossible for UAV owners.

“Let’s start by defining some terms. The term drone is most properly applied to a military weapon. But the word has been erroneously applied to radio controlled model aircraft flown by hobbyists. Drones are for the military; RC aircraft are for hobbyists. OK?”
Now, now. Let’s try rewording that with “assault rifle” and “sporting rifle” instead of drone and RC aircraft to see how that works.